At 11/4/2011 5:07:20 PM, badger wrote:capitalism = people competing against each other.socialism = people working together

logical basis?

Socialism- 100 million deadCapitalism- ????

Competition=/=murder

say you've a deer and two opposing cavemen hunters... one hunter kills the other and wins himself the deer.. that's not capitalism? say you've two states... they go to war over land, one state destroys other and wins the land? that's not capitalism? say you've two opposing bakers... one outbakes the other... the other loses his means of survival, starves and dies (say he was allergic to bread or something) ...that's not capitalism? fair enough, the murdering was less direct in the last example, but still there... all scenarios presented still bear striking resemblance to each other, enough so surely to be categorised under the same ultimate means of survival? as opposed to what's commonly considered the communist and socialist means of survival where the two hunters would've shared the deer, where the two states would've shared the land, and where the two bakers would've been working together.

At 11/4/2011 5:07:20 PM, badger wrote:capitalism = people competing against each other.socialism = people working together

logical basis?

Socialism- 100 million deadCapitalism- ????

Competition=/=murder

say you've a deer and two opposing cavemen hunters... one hunter kills the other and wins himself the deer.. that's not capitalism? say you've two states... they go to war over land, one state destroys other and wins the land? that's not capitalism? say you've two opposing bakers... one outbakes the other... the other loses his means of survival, starves and dies (say he was allergic to bread or something) ...that's not capitalism? fair enough, the murdering was less direct in the last example, but still there... all scenarios presented still bear striking resemblance to each other, enough so surely to be categorised under the same ultimate means of survival? as opposed to what's commonly considered the communist and socialist means of survival where the two hunters would've shared the deer, where the two states would've shared the land, and where the two bakers would've been working together.

You are talking about theoretical capitalism and communism.These are irrelevant in the topic.Capitalism in practice does not do any of the above mentioned things.Humans on the other hand, are naturally greedy. One hunter would take the deer from the other. This is where communism fails.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

At 11/4/2011 5:07:20 PM, badger wrote:capitalism = people competing against each other.socialism = people working together

logical basis?

Socialism- 100 million deadCapitalism- ????

Competition=/=murder

say you've a deer and two opposing cavemen hunters... one hunter kills the other and wins himself the deer.. that's not capitalism? say you've two states... they go to war over land, one state destroys other and wins the land? that's not capitalism? say you've two opposing bakers... one outbakes the other... the other loses his means of survival, starves and dies (say he was allergic to bread or something) ...that's not capitalism? fair enough, the murdering was less direct in the last example, but still there... all scenarios presented still bear striking resemblance to each other, enough so surely to be categorised under the same ultimate means of survival? as opposed to what's commonly considered the communist and socialist means of survival where the two hunters would've shared the deer, where the two states would've shared the land, and where the two bakers would've been working together.

You are talking about theoretical capitalism and communism.These are irrelevant in the topic.Capitalism in practice does not do any of the above mentioned things.Humans on the other hand, are naturally greedy. One hunter would take the deer from the other. This is where communism fails.

so communism fails in being corrupted by humanity's "theoretical" capitalist side...?

At 11/4/2011 5:07:20 PM, badger wrote:capitalism = people competing against each other.socialism = people working together

logical basis?

Socialism- 100 million deadCapitalism- ????

Competition=/=murder

say you've a deer and two opposing cavemen hunters... one hunter kills the other and wins himself the deer.. that's not capitalism? say you've two states... they go to war over land, one state destroys other and wins the land? that's not capitalism? say you've two opposing bakers... one outbakes the other... the other loses his means of survival, starves and dies (say he was allergic to bread or something) ...that's not capitalism? fair enough, the murdering was less direct in the last example, but still there... all scenarios presented still bear striking resemblance to each other, enough so surely to be categorised under the same ultimate means of survival? as opposed to what's commonly considered the communist and socialist means of survival where the two hunters would've shared the deer, where the two states would've shared the land, and where the two bakers would've been working together.

You are talking about theoretical capitalism and communism.These are irrelevant in the topic.Capitalism in practice does not do any of the above mentioned things.Humans on the other hand, are naturally greedy. One hunter would take the deer from the other. This is where communism fails.

so communism fails in being corrupted by humanity's "theoretical" capitalist side...?

Do you want me to prove to you how humans are naturally greedy?

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

At 11/4/2011 5:07:20 PM, badger wrote:capitalism = people competing against each other.socialism = people working together

logical basis?

Socialism- 100 million deadCapitalism- ????

Competition=/=murder

say you've a deer and two opposing cavemen hunters... one hunter kills the other and wins himself the deer.. that's not capitalism? say you've two states... they go to war over land, one state destroys other and wins the land? that's not capitalism? say you've two opposing bakers... one outbakes the other... the other loses his means of survival, starves and dies (say he was allergic to bread or something) ...that's not capitalism? fair enough, the murdering was less direct in the last example, but still there... all scenarios presented still bear striking resemblance to each other, enough so surely to be categorised under the same ultimate means of survival? as opposed to what's commonly considered the communist and socialist means of survival where the two hunters would've shared the deer, where the two states would've shared the land, and where the two bakers would've been working together.

You are talking about theoretical capitalism and communism.These are irrelevant in the topic.Capitalism in practice does not do any of the above mentioned things.Humans on the other hand, are naturally greedy. One hunter would take the deer from the other. This is where communism fails.

so communism fails in being corrupted by humanity's "theoretical" capitalist side...?

This will always come down to definitions... oh but Stalin/Hilter/Pee Wee Herman were not true socialists.

In a true capitalist society no one would ever blah blah blah.

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.